Toward Reform in Land Reform: Coupling Local Control and Social Control.

Geisler, Charles C.

An alternative to the traditional land reform movement in the United States and the recent land use reform movement would result in a merging of social control with local control over land. Traditional land reformers perceive that land is a private commodity subject to fee-simple ownership and near absolute control over its use and disposition. However, land use reformers seek through law to separate ownership from control in the name of broadly conceived public interests. Land use planners contend that the present urban-industrialized conditions require less rather than more property freedom in achieving equality and environmental quality. Through preemption of local control and greater social control of land resources, land use reformers seek an end to the monopoly prerogatives of private ownership. However, this transfer of control merely supplants the natural monopoly of private ownership with a public monopoly. An alternative is local public control, such as land banks and trusts wherein communities acquire property rights in accordance with locally determined land uses. This model satisfies traditionalists in that it precludes neither private property nor traditional land use controls. Land use reformers are satisfied because the individual property owner is no longer the supreme decision maker in land use matters. Finally, because information on land ownership is more accessible locally, local planners have an advantage in staying abreast of and knowing the reliability of their data. (Author/KC)